Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00142
Original file (ND03-00142.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-AMHAR, USN
Docket No. ND03-00142

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 20021028, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20030926. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. I would like my discharge upgraded and my reentry code to be reviewed for change. I believe that the charges that I was brought up for NJP were too harsh in comparison with the situation. I don’t believe that there were fair actions with the punishments made I do not believe that I should have been relieved from my duty and discharged from the military. My roommate was having a party in my room in the barracks with two guys. I came home and witnessed those three performing many illegal actions. I was listed as being involved in the action with no evidence. The only statements that were made possibly heard my voice in the room around the time these actions occurred. The other three individuals were also released from the Navy with multiple charges. I was approached about the situation and told what I knew at that time. Later on I talked to my roommate and found out more things she had done. When I was approached again there was a new story I told that she was doing in my room without me there. She had done these things all the time and I didn’t turn her in. That was considered “Disobeying a lawful order”. Since the story changed as to what all happened in and out of my presences; that charge was “perjury” please reconsider my discharge classification and my reentry code. Thank you.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant’s DD Form 214 (2)
One page from Applicant’s service record (2)
Statement from Applicant, dated June 15, 2003

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     19990323 – 19990419      COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 19990420             Date of Discharge: 20000320

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 11 01
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 19                                   Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 64

 Highest Rate: AMHAA

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF                                    Behavior: NMF             OTA: NMF
Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

000310:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (2 specs): Failure to obey order or regulation (both specs violated on 000305), violation of UCMJ Article 131: Perjury on 000306.
         Award: Forfeiture of $502 per month for 1 month, restriction for 60 days, reduction to AMHAR. No indication of appeal in the record.
000311:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
000311:  Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights.
000607:  Commanding Officer discharged Applicant under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding Officer’s comments (verbatim): On 4 March 2000, AR (Applicant) demonstrated a flagrant disregard for Navy rules and regulations that was prejudicial to good order and discipline. She consciously and knowingly committed the act of perjury and disobeyed a lawful order. I separated her on 20 March 2000 with a General Under Honorable Conditions.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 20000320 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

Issue 1. The Applicant states the charges were too harsh. She states she did not commit the illegal acts that occurred in her BEQ room but some one heard her voice in the room while the acts were occurring and thought she was involved. The Applicant request that her discharge be upgraded to honorable and the reenlistment code be reviewed for change.

The Applicant’s discharge package was not available. Based on the evidence available in her service record and the assumption of regularity for the missing portion of her discharge package, the Board determined the discharge was proper and equitable. Relief denied.

 The following is provided for the edification of the Applicant. Normally, to permit relief, an error or inequity must have occurred during the execution of the discharge for the period of enlistment in question. No errors or inequities were discovered during the execution of this discharge. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded, based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review can be considered. Examples of documentation to forward to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment record(s), documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities, and credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle (if appropriate). At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider. Therefore, no relief will be granted.
The NDRB does not have the authority to change reenlistment codes (RE Codes). The Applicant will have to contact the Board of Correction of Naval Records to address this issue.

She is reminded that he remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of his discharge. The applicant can provide additional documentation to support any claims of post-service
 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.
E. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order) and Article 131 (perjury), if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01039

    Original file (ND03-01039.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01039 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030528. I was completely honest at my Mast, and lost my “A” school, but had the other charges suspended for 6 months. I also feel that based on my 47 months of excellent service, my promotion to E-5 , my good conduct medal, my 2 western pacific deployments, and my Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist award, my discharge should be upgraded to a Honorable Discharge.” Documentation In addition to the service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01398

    Original file (ND03-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation and uncharacterized. “My name is J_ M. R_ (Applicant). ]990517: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00954

    Original file (ND99-00954.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980602 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). The applicant’s first issue states “My undesirable discharge was inequitable because I came forth with the problem to seek help with the military and to try to stay in the military.” The NDRB found no evidence in the applicant’s service record to support this issue. You should read...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00450

    Original file (ND99-00450.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 24 & 28 - I put in for parenthood discharge and I had missed ship's movement due to this problem. I have directed that AN (applicant) be separated from the naval service with a general discharge (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980622 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A).

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00905

    Original file (ND00-00905.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-00905 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000717, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The United States Navy has been good to me and again, I am very proud to have served for such a great organization. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01429

    Original file (ND03-01429.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-01429 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030903. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. ), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.020405: Charge Sheet: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 120: Rape Seaman Recruit on 011123.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00840

    Original file (ND04-00840.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605). As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any documentation for the Board to consider.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00551

    Original file (ND03-00551.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Verifiable proof of any post-service accomplishments must be provided in order for the Applicant to claim post-service conduct and behavior as a reason to upgrade a less than honorable discharge. The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00856

    Original file (ND02-00856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was led to believe this by a representative of the United States Military. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from L_ M_, undated Letter from Applicant, unsigned and undatedLetter from a Member of Congress, dated June 19, 2000Letter to Member, U.S. House of Representatives from National Personnel Records Center, dated June 9, 2000 Statement from Applicant, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF...